My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 02-21-2006
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCP 02-21-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:21:18 PM
Creation date
11/14/2006 4:42:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />2006 City Engineer Annual Review <br />Summary of Responses <br /> <br />I. <br /> <br />What are some of the things that you felt went well during the calendar year <br />2005? (Things that YOU think URS did well.) <br /> <br />a URS has worked very well with the 2006 Ridgewood neighborhood PMP <br />project. The neighborhood meetings were very good. Planning and <br />interaction with residents (3) <br />a Grey FoxlRed Fox PMP implementation. Communication with the <br />business for the 2005 Red Fox PMP. (2) <br />a Preparation of bids for lift station replacements in 2006. Project <br />management for lift station projects. (2) <br />a Help with decision on landscaping of Highway 96. <br />a Help with trail discussions with the Soo Line. <br />a Supplying of maps and materials to O&M in a timely manner. <br />a Organization and communication with Presbyterian Homes during the lift <br />Station #7 pump replacement program. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />What are some of the concerns that you had with the verformance of the City <br />Engineer (URS) during the calendar year 2005? <br /> <br />a At times, URS is not very good about meeting deadlines for City Council <br />meeting related items. Also, the quality of the reports is sometimes <br />lacking. It seems that last minute changes or follow-up calls are needed to <br />obtain necessary information for City Council packets. (3) <br />a Effective and consistent communication with the City Council. <br />a Effective and consistent communication with the staff. <br />a Perhaps too eager to appease all parties involved in a project. <br />a Accurate budget forecasting. (2) <br />a R-O- W acquisitions during a PMP. (2) <br />a Not enough staff personnel assigned to the City. (2) <br />a From the vantage point of a Councilmember, without the benefit of <br />frequent interaction that staff has with URS, no significant concerns. <br />a Removal of trees during lift station project. <br /> <br />o <br />J. <br /> <br />Are there certain strengths and weaknesses that YOU would like to observe <br />about the performance ofURS in 2005? <br /> <br />a URS does a very good job interacting with the public. The neighborhood <br />meetings that I have attended have been very informative and <br />professionally done. <br />a Again horn the vantage point of a Couneilmember, without the frequent <br />interaction that staff has, URS has done a good of communicating with our <br />residents and supporting City work. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.